ANIMADVERSION.

THIS tract, I must confesse, is handsomly and acutely penned, and many things in it well worthy our observation. Yet because I greatly honour antiquity, and highly reverence the holy Fathers of the Church, I must crave pardon, if I deale plainly, and roundly with the Author thereof, who in some passages (as I conceive) doth two much neglect antiquity, and indeed all authority.

For first, in that he saith, the Fathers generally mistake in confounding these names of Heresies and Schisme, they doe not mistake them, but commonly distinguish them, or it is no great matter if they doe, they are so neerly linked together, that they are seldome seperated, you shall hardly find any one guilty of Schisme, but he doth easily and very often fall into Heresie.

Schisme, say you, is an unnecessary seperation of Christians from that part of the visible Church, of which they were once members. But as you will put the question afterwards, who shall be judge what is necessary? and you are loath to assoile this question because the solution thereof carryeth fire in the taile of it, for it bringeth with it a peice of doctrine, seldome pleasing to superiors.

Is this doctrine, let me aske you, good or bad? If good, then it should, then I hope it will be pleasing to superiours; If bad, then should it displease superiours and inferiours too. But the truth is, the doctrine is most pernicious to government, and therefore to all sorts of people, to wit, in plaine termes, it is this, that every one must judge for himself with this proviso, so he be animo defaecato, And I pray who shall judge of this? Even your selfe also. So that if you be perswaded that you are animo defaecato, and if you thinke you have cleared your selfe from the froath and grownes of feare, sloath, and ambition, then it must needs be so, whereas the heart of man being deceitfull above all things, there is nothing more usuall then for a man to deceive himselfe, and think he is thus and thus, when he is nothing so. And seeing the best of us all have faces enough in us, why may not superiors have as few of these dreggs in them as inferiors, and so as well able, at the least, to judge a right, as they. And you may talke what you will of being clear from the froath of ambition, I know not what greater pride and ambition there can be then thus to pull downe all authority and jurisdiction, and erect a tribunall in euery mans brest; And yet he that goeth about it, will think him selfe to be animo defaecato: And you may well say it carrieth fire in the taile of it. For thus to trample under foot all power and authority, by making every one his own judge, must needs raise a great combustion and a strange confusion in the world.

Secondly, you cannot endure that they should be truly Hereticks and Schismaticks which were anciently so esteemed. For say you, men are more affrighted then hurt by the Auncients, and that many reverence antiquity more then need, and after tell us in plain tearmes, that when they came to pronounce of Schismes in particular, whether it were because of their own interests, or that they saw not the truth, or for what other cause God only doth know, their judgements many times to (speak most gently) are justly to be suspected.

Where I will not goe about to defend all the particular tenents of every Father, for questionlesse, being men, they had their passions and perturbations as well as wee, so that take them singly, wee shall find in many of them such private conceits of their owne, which cannot be so well excused: Yet for all this, when all, or most of them agree together in any point, we are not to question or doubt of the truth of it, according to that ancient and hitherto well approved rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, Lib. ad Her. cap. 39. Whatsoever all of them, or most of them, in one and the same sense shall plainly frequently and constantly deliver and confirme, let that be esteemed as a ratified, certaine, and undoubted truth.

So then, though one or two of them may be mistaken, yet that all or the greatest part should agree together in a falsehood, I cannot easily believe. And therefore I cannot think that the current of the Fathers should thus be mistaken, and that they should generally account them for Hereticks and Schismaticks, which were not so indeed; I shall not so much suspect their judgements, as his that thinks so. But all this I perceive is, that there might be some opinions favoured now, which were commonly condemned by them, as we shall see afterward.

TRACT.

But to goe on with what I intended, and from that that diverted me, that you may the better judge of the nature of Schismes by their occasions, you shall find that all Schismes have crept into the Church by one of these three waies, either upon matter of fact, or upon matter of opinion, or point of ambition: for the first, I call that matter of fact, when something is required to be done by us, which either we know, or strongly suspect to be unlawfull; so the first notable Schisme, of which we read in the Church, contained in it matter of fact, for it being upon error taken for necessary, that an Easter must be kept, and upon worse then error (if I may so speak) for it was no lesse then a point of Iudaisme forced upon the Church, upon worse then error, I say, thought further necessary that the ground of the time, for keeping of that Feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Iewes, there arose a stout Question, whether we were to celebrate with the Iewes on the fourteenth Moon, or the Sunday following? This matter though most unnecessary, most vaine, yet caused as great a combustion as ever was in the Church, the West separating and refusing Communion with the East, for many years together: In this fantasticall hurry I cannot see but all the world were Schismatiques, neither can any thing excuse them from that imputation, excepting only this, that we charitably suppose that all parties did what they did out of Conseience, a thing which befell them through the ignorance of their guides, (for I will not say through their malice) and that through the just judgement of God. because through sloath and blind obedience men examined not the things which they were taught, but like beasts of burthen, patiently couched downe, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiours laid upon them: by the way, by this we may plainly see the danger of our appeale to Antiquity, for resolution in controverted points of Faith, and how small reliefe we are to expect from thence; for if the discretion of the chiefest Guides, & Directors of the Church, did in a point so triviall, so inconsiderable, so mainely faile them, as not to see the truth in a subject, wherein it is the greatest marvaile, how they could avoide the sight of it, can we without the imputation of great grossenesse and folly, think so poore spirited persons, competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches; pardon me, I know not what Temptation drew that note from me.

ANIMADVERSION.

Thirdly, about keeping of Easter, say you, anciently all the world were Schismaticks.

A strange assertion, to lay such an heavy imputation upon all those auncient worthies. Had they been thus guilty, it had been the part of a dutifull sonne to have made some apology for them, and to have covered his Fathers nakednesse. But a farre greater crime it is, thus to accuse them without a cause. The best of it is, I shall not haue occasion here to excuse their error, but to defend their innocencie. For first, their difference is not about a point that concerneth Faith or Good manners, but only the outward discipline and government of the Church: about the keeping of a solemne feast. And that not, whether we should keep it or no, (for all agreed well enough that it ought to be kept) but about the time of keeping it, whether at this or that time, which is a matter of farre lesse moment.

The occasion of this difference briefly was thus, St Peter and his successors at Rome kept Easter the Sunday after the foureteenth Moon. But S. Iames and many of his successors at Ierusalem, being all of them Ministers of the circumcision, the sooner to win their brethren the Iewes, condescended to keep their Easter, as the Iewes did, 14o Lunae. Which diversity of observation continued for the space of 200. years, neither Church censuring or condemning one another for it. Till at the length Victor Pope of Rome would needs take upon him to bring all those Easterne Churches to his custome, and excommunicate them for not yeelding, whereupon grew the Schisme. So that although at the first they kept Easter diversly for a long time together, yet so long as there was no breach of charity between them, there was no Schisme, by your own confession, who tell us, that Schisme offends against charity, as Heresy against truth.

So then, whiles they were charitable one to another, all the world were so farre from being Schismaticks, that no part of it could be justly thus branded. The Schisme indeed began, when the Pope would needs rashly and unadvisedly excommunicate those Easterne Churches, with whom he had nothing to doe. But then was not the whole world, but only Victor and his partizans the Schismaticks according to you, who unjustly divided themselves from the other side, the East Churches continuing their old custome without any Schisme at all, yet some of them not forbearing to tell Victor of his unadvised and unjustifiable action.

For shall we not allow to severall Churches (especially when they have no dependency one upon another) their severall rites and observations, but they must be all Schismatick for it? You may as well call both these Churches Schismaticks for this also, because the one Church fasts on Saturday, the other fasts not; the one administers the Eucharist in unleavened, the other in leavened bread. These and such like points concerne not the body of the Church, but her garments: now although her body must be but one, yet her garments are of divers colours. Nay, as one saith very well, diversitas rituum commendat unitatem fidei. The unity of faith doth more gloriously appeare amidst the diversity of ceremonies and rituall observations.

I wonder if one of our refined spirits now a daies, who is animo defaecato, had lived in those times, what could he have done to avoid this Schisme? how could he have chosen but be a Schismatick on one side or another? I conceive how he should have escaped by you, to wit, to joyne with neither side by keeping no Easter at all: for with you it is an error to think that an Easter must be kept: which position being put in practise will prove the greatest Schime of all, thus to divide ones selfe from all the Christian world. For although these holy Fathers differed for a while amongst themselves about the time, yet they all agreed against you about the thing it selfe, and not only the Orthodoxe but the very Hereticks of those times kept an Easter. Not so much as the Novatians (who called themselves Cathari the Puritans of the Primitive Church) but an Easter they had, though they were very indifferent about the time of keeping it. And the whole Christian world ever since hath duely observed the keeping of Easter. But you take no notice of this, only your eare is to excuse those Fathers the best you can. And you can find but this one way to doe it, That we charitably suppose that all parties did what they did out of conscience, a thing which befell them through the ignorance of their guides, for I will not say through their malice, and that through the just judgement of God, because through sloath and blind obedience, men examined not the things which they were taught, but like beasts of burthen patiently couched downe, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their superiors laid upon them.

Doe you call this an excusation, and not rather an heavy censure and accusation both of Priest and People in those purer times: For what a dishonour is this to the Pastors and Prelates then, that they who lived so neare the Apostles should be such ignorant guides? Nay what a disparagement is it to the very Apostles themselves, that they should choose such ignorant guides, that could instruct the people no better. For some of these you speak of, certainly were the immediate successors of the Apostles themselves. They have been accounted hitherto men, not only of conscience but of learning, knowing and understanding, pious and devout men, in many of them the gift of doing miracles still remained. I cannot with patience speak against this imputation.

But you are as bold with the people, by accusing them of sloath and blind obedience, and to be beasts of burthen, because they did not examine what they were taught.

Whereas this good people had well learned, that they should not, they could not be wiser then their teachers; and they had been newly taught from St Pauls own mouth, that they were to obey those that had the rule over them, and submit themselves. Which was not a blind but a wise discreet holy and dutifull obedience.

But you it seems will teach the people another lesson, to wit, to guide their guides. And they are now apt enough to learne it. For they begin to practise it apace.

But you inferre upon these weak premises. By this you may plainly see the danger of our appeale to antiquity for resolution in coutroversed points of faith, and how small reliefe we are to expect from thence; For if the discretion of the chiefest guides of the Church, did in a point so triviall, so inconsiderable, so mainely faile them as not to see the truth, &c.

But you build too large a structure upon such a sandy foundation. For here the discretion of the chiefest guides of the Church did not faile them, as you imagine: but they constantly kept their own severall customes in love and charity, and therefore without Schisme, till Victor would needs take too much upon him, whereas the whole businesse was afterwards setled in that famous Councell of Nice.

So that here is no oversight of any truth, as I conceive, unlesse, as you intimate before, the truth is, they should have kept no Easter at all: and then as you say, it was most unnecessary and most vaine to strive about the time of keeping it. But such a truth as this, the Christian world hath not yet embraced, neither doe I know when it will. So that for ought yet appeares, (unlesse you bring better reason against them) we may take good directions from antiquity in the resolution of our moderne controversies: and we may for all this examine the question on foot, by the doctrine of those purer times, and Heroick spirits, although you are pleased to terme them poore spirited persons. Which to mee seemeth a very strange appellation, was S. Ambrose a poore spirited person, who durst excommunicate that great Emperour Theodosius, and forbid him to enter into the Church? Was S. Chrisostome a poor spirited person, who did preach against Eudoxia the Empresse, and valiantly suffered banishment for it? Was S. Athanasius either, a poor spirited person who durst stand out even against all the World, as it is storied of him, Athanasius against the world, and the world against Athanasius? Or were any of those Fathers poor spirited persons, who did couragiously suffer martyrdome for the testimony of Christ? Can you name any one author auncient or moderne, that hath so called or esteemed of them? If not, then it is but thus with you. The Fathers are poor spirited persons, because I say so, who am animo defaecato.

Neither are you yet constant to your selfe in this assertion, for although here you call them poor spirited persons, yet afterwards you doe in effect unsay it, where you so much approve of what Socrates observeth of them, that they were the great disturbers of the Christian world. Doe poore spirited persons use to make such hurly burlies? Pardon me, say you, I know not what temptation drew this note from me.

And if you would pardon me, I could give a great guesse at the temptation. I feare it is a temptation of pride and singularity, thus to trample upon those auncient worthies, the better to make way for some kind of novelty. And I would it were no worse then this, of not keeping Easter.

TRACT.

The next Schisme which had in it matter of fact, is that of the Donatist, who was perswaded (at least pretended so) that it was unlawfull to converse or communicate in holy duties with men stained with any notorious sinne, for howsoever, that Austen doe specifie only the Thurificati and Traditores and Libellatici, &c. as if he separated only from those, whom he found to be such, yet by necessary proportion, he must referre to all notorious sinners, upon this he taught that in all places, where good and bad were mixt together, there could be no Church by reason of Pollution, evaporating as it were from sinners, which blasted righteous persons, who conversed with them, and made all unclean on this ground, separating himselfe from all that he list to suspect, he gave out, that the Church was no where to be found but in him, and his Associates, as being the only men among whom wicked persons found no shelter, and by consequence the only cleare and unpolluted company, and therefore the only Church. Against this Saint Augustine laid downe this Conclusion, Vnitatem Ecclesiae per totum Mundum dispersae propter nonnullorum peccata non esse deserendam, which is indeed the whole summe of that Fathers disputation against the Donatists. Now in one part of this Controversy, one thing is very remarkable. The truth was there, where it was, by meer chance, and might have been on either side, the reason brought by either party notwithstanding, for though it were Defacto false, that pars Donati shut up in Africke was the only Othodox party, yet it might be true, notwithstanding any thing Saint Augustine brings to confute it; and on the contrary, though it were de facto true, that the part of Christians dispersed over the whole Earth were Orthodox, yet it might have been false, notwithstanding any thing Saint Augustine brings to confirme it. For where, or amongst whom, or how many the Church shall be, or is, is a thing indifferent, it may be in any number more or lesse, it may be in any Place, Country or Nation, it may be in all, and for ought I know, it may be in none, without any prejudice to the definition of a Church, or the truth of the Gospell, North or South, many or few, dispersed in many places, or confined to one: None of these doe either prove or disprove a Church.

Now this Schisme, and likewise that former, to a wise man that well understands the matter in Controversie, may afford perchance matter of pitty, to see men so strangely distracted upon fancy, but of doubt or trouble what to doe, it can yeeld none; for though in this Schisme the Donatist be the Schismatick, and in the former, both parties be equally ingaged in the Schisme; yet you may safely upon your occasions communicate with either, if so be you slatter neither in their Schisme: For why might not it be lawfull to goe to Church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, if occasion so require? since neither Nature, nor Religion, nor Reason doth suggest any thing of moment to the contrary? For in all publique meetings pretending holinesse, so there be nothing done, but what true Devotion and piety brooke; why may not I be present in them, and use communication with them; Nay, what if those to whom the execution of the publique service is committed, doe something either unseemly or suspitious, or peradventure unlawfull? what if the garments they weare be censured, nay indeed be superstitious? what if the gesture of adoration be used to the Altars, as now we have learn'd to speak? what if the Homilist have preached, or delivered any doctrine of the truth, of the which we are not well perswaded? a thing which very often falls out: yet for all this we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to beare a part in them our selves; The Priests under Ely had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily sacrifice, that the Scripture tells us, they made them to stink, yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle, nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest, for in those Schismes which concerne fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing of Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawfull or suspected act; for not only in reason, but in religion too, that maxime admits of no release, cautissimicuius que Praeceptum quod dubitas ne feceris; long it was ere the Church fell upō Schisme, upō this occasion, though of late it hath had very many, for until the second Councell of Nice, in which concileable, Superstition and Ignorance did conspire, I say, untill the Rout did set up Image-worship, there was not any remarkable Schisme upon just occasion of fact, all the rest of Schismes of that kinde were but wantons, this was truly serious; in this the Schismaticall party was the Synod it selfe, and such as conspired with it; for concerning the use of Images in sacris,

First, it is acknowledged by all that it is a thing unnecessary.

Secondly, it is by most suspected.

Thirdly, it is by many held utterly unlawfull, can then the enjoyning of such a thing be ought else but abuse? or can the refusall of Communion here be thought any other thing then duety? Here or upon the like occasion to separate, may peradventure bring personall trouble or danger, (against which it concernes any honest man, to have pectus bene Praeparatum) further harme it cannot doe, so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think, or what you have to doe.

ANIMADVERSION.

Fourthly, you fall foule upon S. Austin in particular, who, I may boldly say, hath deserved as well of the Christian world as any one man since the Apostles times. And if this were my opinion alone, I should suspect it, but I appeale herein to the generall applause the learned have of him.

The truth was, say you, on S. Austins side against the Donatist, but by meer chance. For the Donatist might have been the only Orthodoxe party, for any thing S. Austin brings to confute it, and the other party might not have been Orthodoxe, for any thing S. Austin brings to confirme it.

Then which, what could have been spoken more derogatory to so famous, learned and renowned a Father? As if his arguments were so slight and silly, both to defend himselfe and offend his adversary, that they are not worth the reading or regarding, but are as much, as if he had said nothing at all. Whereas it is well known and confessed, that although this good father was renowned for many things, yet his master peece doth appeare in his Polemicks, who, to the admiration of the World hitherto, is accounted to have acutely subtly, & soundly confuted all those Hereticks and Schismaticks he wrote against; and therefore deservedly stiled Malleus haereticorum, the mauler of the hereticks.

Now he must be esteemed a silly man, and to have said nothing against them. You should doe well, now you have thus accused him, to set downe and make it appeare unto the world, that his arguments both offensive and defensive against the Donatist, are so slight and weake as you would make us believe. There be some that will defend him, and maintaine that this Father hath proved against the Donatist by irrefragable arguments drawn out of Scripture, that the Church of Christ neither then was, nor ever shall be, drawn into such a narrow compasse, as you and they imagine.

I would aske you this question. If S. Austin hath given you so little satisfaction against the Donatist, how doe you know, but that the Donatist may be defacto in the right, and S. Austin in the wrong; for it seems by you, it was but hap hazard, which way it would goe. I would therefore willingly learne the way you take to discerne which of these two waies is the right, for it seems you have learnt nothing by S. Austin.

But me thinks you goe a strange way to worke to say the Church may be in none, without any prejudice to the definition of the Church or the truth of the Gospell.

I would willingly know how you define a Church, which shall consist of none, and whether this be not most derogatory to the truth of the Gospell, that Christ should have a Church which is in none, that is, as I conceive it, should have no Church at all. For although it pleaseth God to remove his Candlestick from one Country to another, and that his Church should be like the Moon, sometimes in the full, and sometimes in the waine; yet that it should be utterly eclipsed, and quite vanish away, directly crosseth the prophesies of the old Testament, and the promises of the new.

But you will pitty S. Austin and those Fathers before him, that were thus distracted upon fancy.

And me thinks the greatest pitty of all is, that some of our wise men that so well now understand the matters in controversy, had not lived in their times, to have rectified them, and put these fancies out of their heads. But I know not, whether it be not the greatest fancy of all, to think our selves so wise, and them so phantasticall.

But you easily resolve the doubt, and think it lawfull to goe to Church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, so you flatter neither in their Schisme, and there be nothing done but what true devotion and piety will brooks.

But how can this be? for your joyning with them in their custome and communion, must needs, if not flatter, yet much harten and encourage them in their Schisme. Besides you give a great scandall and offence to the Orthodox party, and make them justly so suspect, that because you thus joyne with them in their publique communion, that you favour, at the least dislike not, their private opinion. Thus then to scandalize your brethren, can never stand with true piety and devotion.

TRACT.

Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of Schisme, arising upon occasion of variety of opinion: It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves, with that measure of Faith, which God and Scriptures have expresly afforded us, but out of a vaine desire to know more then is revealed, they have attempted to devise things, of which we have no light, neither from Reason nor Revelation, neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church authority (which is none) or Tradition (which for the most part is but fained) they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon other a necessity of entertayning conclusions of taht nature, & to strengthen themselves have broken out into divisions and factions, opposing man to man, Synod to Synod, till the peace of the Church vanished, without all possibiity of recall: hence arose those ancient, and many seperations amongst Christians, occasioned by Arianisme, Eutychianisme, Nestorianisme, Photinianisme, Sabellianisme, and many more both ancients, and in our owue time, all which indeed are but names of Schisme; howsoever in the common language of the Fathers, they were called Heresies, for Heresie is an act of the will, not of thereason, and is indeed a lye and not a mistake, else how could that of Austen go for true, Errare possum, Hareticus esse nolo: indeed Manichanisme, Valentinianisme, Macedonianisme, Mahometisme, are truly and properly Herises: For wee know that the Authors of them received them not, but invented them themselves, and so knew what they taught to be a lye: but can any man avouch that Arius and Nestorius, and others that taught erroniously concerning the Trinity, and the person of our SAVIOUR, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake? till that be done, and upon good evidence, we will thinke no worse of all parties than needs we must, and take these Rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schismes, upon matter of opinion, in which case what we are to do, is not a point of any great depth of understanding to discover, if so be distemper and partiality do not intervene: I do not see that opinionum varictas & opinantium unitas, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or that men of different opinions in Christian Religion, may not hold communion in Sacris, and both go to one Church, why may I not go▪ If occasion require, to an Arian Church, so there be no Arianisme exprest in their Liturgy, and were Liturgies and publique formes of Service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained onely such things, as in which all Christians do agree; Schismes on opinion were utterly vanished: for consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have beene, and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party, and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the event shall be, that the publique Service and Honour of God shall no wayes suffer. Whereas to load our publique formes, with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most soveraigne way to perpetuate Schisme unto the worlds end; Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading of Scriptures, Administration of Sacriments, in the plainest and the simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of Church Pomp, of Garments, or prescribed Gestures, of Imagery, of musike, of matter concerning the Dead, of many superfluities which creep into the Church, under the name of Order, and Decency, did interpose it selfe.

To charge Churches and Liturgies, with things unnecessary was first the beginning of all superstition, and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended, there Schisme began to breake in; if the speciall Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with superfluities, or not over-rigid either in reviving obsolete Customes, or imposing new, there would be farre lesse cause of Schisme or Superstition, and all the inconveniance likely to ensue, would be but this, they should in so doing yeeld a little to the imbecillity of their Inferiors, a thing which S. Paul would never haue refused to do; meane while wheresoever false or suspected opinions are made a peice of Church Liturgy, he that seperates is not the Schismatique, for it is alike unlawfull to make profession of known or suspected falsehood, as to put in practise unlawfull or suspected actions.

ANIMADVERSION.

Fiftly, having trampled upon the Auncients, you come now to the Church, and levell that also with the ground. It hath been, say you, the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of faith which God and Scriptures have expressely afforded us, but out of a vaine desire to know more then is revealed, they have attempted to devise things of which we have no light from reason nor revelation. Neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church authority (which is none) or Tradition (which for the most part is but fained. &c.

I, hath the Church no authority? did not our Saviour giue power to the Church to punish & excommunicate a notorious offendor? when he saith, goe tell the Church, and if he heare not the Church, let him be to thee a heathen or a Publican. And did not his S. Paul give great power to the Church when he calleth it the Pillar and fortresse of truth. It were easy here to enlarge my selfe, and prove out of the Ancient Fathers did you not reject them, that they attributed great powre & authority to the Church. But the Church of England (whose sonne suppose you are, and therefore cannot so well neglect her authority) will tell you,Artic. 20. that the Church hath powre to decree rites or ceremonyes, and authority in controversies of faith. But here you would cry up the authority of the Scriptures, that thereby you might decry the authority of the Church, whereas these two are not opposite, but subordinate one to another; I meane the Church to the Scripture; If therefore you will commend unto us the authority of Scripture, you must also uphold the authority of the Church, which is founded in Scripture, but if you nullify the authority of the Church, you must also neglect the authority of the Scripture, which giveth the Church such power. And let no man think the Roman Church will here break in upon mee, for by Church, I meane the truly auncient Catholick and Apostolicke Church, from which the Roman Church is farre enough.

And as by Church, so I meane by Tradition, for where Tradition is fained, none are to esteem of it, but when it doth appeare unto us to be truly auncient Catholick and Apostolick, it is not a little to be regarded. Hereupon Vincentius would have us duplici modo munire fidem, to fortify our faith two manner of waies,Cap. 1. & 2. primò, divinae legis authoritate, deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione, first, by the authority of divine law, then by the tradition of the Catholick Church. Then he putteth that objection, which you here, and many others are used to make; seeing that the canon of Scripture is perfect enough and more then enough sufficient in it selfe to all things, what need is there that wee should joyne unto it the authority of Ecclesiasticall exposition. Unto which me thinks he giveth a very satisfying answere, Because all doe not understand the holy Scriptures, by reason of the height thereof, in one and the same sense: but one interprets it one way, and another a severall way. So that there be as many minds and meanings about it, almost as there be men. For Novatus expounds it one way, Donatus another, Arius another, Pelagius another, &c. Therefore it is very needfull, by reason of so great and diverse errors, that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation, be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholick meaning.

So that true and Catholick Tradition, is like unto a strong wall about the garden of holy Scripture, which keeps it from the incursion of Hereticks, or if they chance to get in, it is a soveraine antidote to preserve us from the poison they suck out of these sweet flowers.

So that take the Church and Tradition in a right sense, there is much to be attributed to them, but I entend brevity. Only I cannot omit, how you would make us believe, that this authority of the Church hath caused those seperations which Arius, Nestorius, and other Hereticks have raised, when you say, hence arose those auncient and many separations amongst Christians. &c.

Whereas indeed it was the authority of the Church and Catholick Fathers which hath quelled, confuted, and silenced all those Heresies, and Hereticks which it seems you have a mind to revive, for you will not have them called Heresies, but Schismes, for indeed, say you, they are but names of Schisme, howsoever in the common language of the Fathers they were called Heresies.

But you must pardon those who thinke it safer and sounder to follow the common language of the Fathers, then your own private assertion.

But you have a reason for it. For Heresie, say you, is an act of the will not of reason, whereas indeed it is both. For doth not the hereticke first fasten upon a false opinion, which is an act of the understanding and corrupted reason, and this is the materiall part of heresie. And then doth wilfully and stubbornely▪ being convinced of it, maintaine the same, which is an act of the will and formalizeth heresie. And in this sense, not in yours, is that knowne speech of St. Austine true, errare possum, haereticus esse nolo, that is, I may erre and so fall into the materiall part of heresie, by apprehending and iudging that to be a good doctrine which is false and erroneous, but haereticus esse nolo, I will not be an hereticke, that is, I will not persist in this opinion, being lawfully convicted and condemned for it by the Church and governours thereof. For then I should be formally and properly an hereticke. For howsoever you slight and nullify the authority of the Church, yet in the primitive times when the Church was at unity, when there was not altare contra altare, it was then esteemed to be of great power and authority, which authority of that Church hath justly declared not only the Manichees, Valentinians and Marcionites, but also the Arians, Nestorians, and Pelagians to be hereticks. Howsoever you are willing to distinguish them, and make these latter scarce Schismaticks, for you will take these rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schismes. Then at the best it seemes they are not so much as Schismes.

Yet I cannot be perswaded so ill of the former; as to thinke they knew what they taught, was a lye, and so went directly against their owne consciences: nor yet so well of the latter to excuse them with you, from heresie, for I am yet to learne, that heresie is nothing els, but to know that a lye is taught, such kinde of wickednesse I shall rather terme open blasphemy then heresie, when men go against the light of their owne consciences.

Sixtly, you chalke us out a way, wherein we may safely walke, not only with the Donatists, But with the Arian and all other hereticks. And that is to have Liturgies and publique formes of service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancyes, but contained onely such things, as in which all Christians do agree; and then, Schismes on opinion were vtterly vanished, and thus, say you, I may go to an Arian Church.

A pretty fancy indeede. But first I thinke you could not prevaile with the Arian party to frame their Creede so, as might not give offence to the orthodoxe side, for in all Liturgies they use to have a confession of their faith.

And secondly, if you could prevaile with them, how could you perswade all our Churches, to put that clause out of our Creede. [I believe in Christ the only begotten sonne of God, begotten of his father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the father by whome all things were made.] which was a good illustration of our Creed joyned to it, and made a part of it by the fathers of the Nicene Councell against the Arians then, and will serve as a sufficient bulwarke against our Sosinians now: which Creed hath had the generall applause of the Christian Churches since, and hath the honour to be one of the Creeds of the Catholicke Church.

You must prevaile with them likewise to blot out of Athanasius Creed (which though it were made but by one man, yet by generall approbation is now also become the Creed of all our Churches,) I say you must put out of it, these clauses. [there is one person of the Father, another of the sonne, another of the Holy Ghost, but the Godhead of the Father & of the sonne and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equall, the majesty coeternall, the Father eternall, the sonne eternall, and the Holy Ghost eternall: the Father is God, the sonne is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.] All which do directly overthrow these heresies. And do not call these clauses, particular and private fancies, for they are part of the universall and publique faith of the Church, which all the East and West, all Popish and Reformed Churches doe unanimously professe and believe. It is not a time now to add, much lesse to detract, from our publique Confessions of faith.

TRACT.

The third thing I named for matter of Schisme was Ambition, I meane Episcopall Ambition, shewing it selfe especially in two heads, one concerning Pluralities of Bishops in the same Sea. Another concerning the superiority of Bishops in diverse Seas. Aristotle tels us that necessity causeth but small faults, but Avarice and Ambition were the mother of great Crimes; Episcopall Ambition hath made this true, for no occasion hath produced more frequent, more continuous, more sanguineous Schismes, than this hath done; the Seas of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Antioch, and above all of Rome, doe abundantly shew thus much, and all Ecclesiasticall stories witnesse no lesse, of which the greatest part consists of factionating and tumultuating of great and potent Bishops.

Socrates Apologizing for himselfe, that professing to write an Ecclesiasticall story, he did oft-times interlace the actions of secular Princes and other Civill businesse, tels us that he did this to refresh his reader, who otherwise were in danger to be cloyd by reading so much of the Acts of unquiet and unruly Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in which as a man may say, they made butter and cheese one of another, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that I may shew you a cast of my old office and open you a mystery in Grammer, properly signifies to make butter and cheese, and because these are not made without much agitation of the milk, hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by a borrowed and translated signification, signifies to do things with much agitation and tumult.

But that I may a little consider of the two heads, I but now specified, the first I mentioned was the plurality of Bishops in one Sea. For the generall practise of the Church, since the beginning, at least since the originall of Episcopacy, as now it is, was never to admit at once more than one Bishop in one Sea, and so far in this point have they been carefull to preserve unity, that they would not have a Bishop in his Sea to have two Cathedrall Churches, which thing lately brought us a book out of France De monogamia Episcoporum, written by occasion of the Bishop of La • gres: who, I know not upon what fancy, could not be content with one Cathedrall Church in his Diocesse but would needs have two, which to the Author of that Work seeme, to be a kind of Spirituall Polygamy; it fell out amongst the Ancients very often, sometimes upon occasion of difference in opinions, sometimes because of those who were interessed in the choice of Bishops; that two and sometimes more were set up, and all parties striving to maintaine their owne Bishop, made themselves severall Churches, severall Congregations, each refusing to participate with others, & many times proceeding to mutuall excommunications; that is that which Cyprian cals Erigere Altare contra Altare, to this doth he impute the originall of all Church disorders, and if you read him, you world thinke he thought no other Church tumult to be Schisme but this. This perchance may plead some excuse, for though in regard of Religion it selfe, it matters not whether there be one or more Bishops in one Diocesse, and sometimes two are knowne to have set at once; for Epiphanius reckoning up the Bishops of Rome, makes Peter and Paul the first: and Saint Augustin acknowledgeth for a time he sate fellow Bishop with his predecessor, though he excused it, that he did so by being ignorant that the contrary had been decreed by the Councell of Nice, yet it being a thing very convenient for the peace of the Church to have it so, neither doth it any whit savour of vice or misdemeanor, their punishments sleeps not who unnecessarily and wantonly goe about to infring it.

ANIMADVERSION.

Seventhly, you come to Episcopall Ambition, then which you say none hath caused more frequent, more continuous, more sanguineous Schismes.

It is very true indeed, we shall read of many uproares and much bloudshed about the election of some Bishops, for which you cannot so much accuse the Bishops as the factious, furious, and unruly multitude, who eagerly pursue their severall humors, and are violently carryed into extreames. And therefore for the cure of this mischiefe, the order and power of Bishops was not taken away, but the choice of them, you know, was taken from the giddy multitude and translated unto the nomination and election of temporall Princes.

As for your story out of Socrates, you should have done well to have put downe the place, that your reader might have seene, you have urged it to your owne advantage. I shall set it downe plainly as I finde it in his proeme to his fift booke: where Socrates intending to write an ecclesiasticall history, and yet withall is willing to mingle amongst it temporall affaires, makes three apologies for it. First, saith he, that these warlike affaires might not be forgotten, but come unto posterity, for it seemes there were few or no historians in his time. The second excuse is (which you alledge) for variety sake, least the reader should be cloyed with perusing only Church affaires, which is no more then if a man writing a story of a common-wealth, should for variety and delight, intermixe here and there businesses of the Church. Not that the common-wealth was then more quiet then the Church, but there were full as many troubles and tumults in that as in this. Nay which may serve somewhat to excuse the unquietnesse of the Clergy, it was caused through the disturbance of the common-wealth. For that is Socrates his thirde and chiefest reason, because by setting downe the affaires of the temporall estate, we may knowe from whence these tumults amongst Bishops arose. For when, saith he, the common-wealth was thus tossed up and downe with troubles and seditions with factions and divisions: the estate of the Church and chiefest Church-men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it were by a certaine kinde of Sympathy, could not chuse but be infected with the same disease.

Besides, suppose some Bishops then were factious and ambitious, you should consider that this concerneth the persons of Bishops, not their calling, though I thinke you might have spared both. Now what a vulgar and illogicall way is this, through the sides of any mans person to wound his very calling. And had our great writer of Bishops lives been as carefull to lay together all that makes for them, as he hath been industrious to rake together all that makes against them, he might have made his volumes swell twise as bigg.

TRACT.

But that other head of Episcopall Ambition, concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Seas, one clayming Supremacy over another, as it hath been from time to time, a great trespasse against the Churches Peace, so it is now the finall ruine of it. The East & West through the fury of the two prime Bishops being irremediably separated without all hope of Reconcilement. And besides all this mischiefe, it is founded on a vice contrary to all Christian humility, without which no man shall see his SAVIOUR; for they do but abuse themselues and others, that would perswade us, that Bishops by CHRISTS Institution haue any superiority over other men further then of Reverence, or that any Bishop is Superior to another further than Positive order agreed upon amongst Christians hath prescribed: for we have beleived him that hath told us that in IESVS CHRIST there is neither high nor low, and that in giving honour, every man should be ready to preferre another before himselfe, which saying cuts of all clayme certainly of superiority, by title of Christianity, except men thinke that these things were spoken only to poore and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this heraldry of Secundum sub & supra, all this comes from Composition and agreement of men amongst themselves, wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition, is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy, and an ordinary I will not give it, least you should take so transcendent a vice to be but triviall.

Now concerning Schisme arising upon these heads, you cannot be for behaviour much to seek, for you may safely communicate with all parties as occasion shall call you, and the Schismatiques here are all those who are heads of the faction, together with all those who foment it: for private and indifferent persons, they may be spectators of these contentions as securely in regard of any perill of Conscience, (for of danger in purse or person, I keepe no account) as at a Cock fight where serpents fight, who cares who hath the better? the best wish is that both may perish in the fight.

And for conventicles, of the nature of which you desire to be informed, thus much in generall evidently appeares, that all meetings upon an unnecessary seperation are to be so stiled, so that in sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismatiques, yet Time hath taken leave sometimes to fix this name upon good and honest meetings, and that perchance not altogether without good reason, for with publique religious meetings thus it fares. First, it hath been at all times confessed necessary, that God requires not only inward and private devotion, when men either in their hearts and Closets or within their privaet walls, pray, prayse, confesse and acknowledg; but he further requires all those things to be done in publique, by troupes and shoales of men, and from hence have proceeded publique Temples, Altars, formes of Service, appoynted times, and the like, which are required for open Assemblies, yet whilst men are truely pious, all meetings of men for mutuall help of piety & devotion wheresoever and by whomsoever celebrated, were permitted without exception.

But when it was espyed that ill affected persons abused private meetings, whether Religious or Civill to evill ends; Religiousnesse to crosse Impiety, as appeares in the Ethnick Elusinia, and Bacchanalia, and Christian meetings under the Pagan Princes, when for feare they durst not come together in open view, were charged with foule imputations, as by the report of Christians themselves plainely appeares, and Civill meetings many times, under pretence of friendly and neighbourly visites, sheltred treasonable attempts against Princes and Common-weales,

Hence both Church and State joyned, and joyntly gave order for Formes, Times, Places of Publique meetings, whether for Religious or Civill ends, and all other meetings whatsoever, besides those of which both time and Place, are limited, they censured for Routs and Riots, and unlawfull Assemblies in the State, and in the Church, for Conventicles.

So that it is not lawfull, no not for prayer, • earing, for Conference, for any other Religious office whatsoever, for people to Assemble otherwise, then by publique order is allowed, neither may wee complaine of this in times of incorruption, for why should men desire to do that suspitiously in private which warrantably may be performed in publique.

But in times of manifest Corruptions and persecutions, wherein Religious Assembling is dangerous, private meetings howsoever, besides publique order, are not only lawfull, but they are of necessity and duty, else how shall we excuse Meetings of Christians for publique Service, in time of danger and persecutions, and of our selues in Queene Maries dayes? and how will those of the Romane Church amongst us, put off the imputation of Conventicling, who are knowne amongst us privately to assemble for Religious exercise against all established order, both in State and Church? For indeed all pious Assemblies in times of persecution and corruption howsoever practised, are indeed or rather alone the lawfull Congregations, and Publique Assemblies though according to forme of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stayned with corruption and superstition.

ANIMADVERSION.

Eightly and lastly, you take away all superiority from Bishop's when you say, they doe but abuse themselves and others, that would perswade us, that Bishops by Christs institution have any superiority over other men, further then of reverence.

Where (although you intended onely to speake against the superiority of one Bishop over another) yet you seeme to take away, not only all power of one Bishop over another, but of a Bishop over a Presbyter, yea of a Bishop over any other private man. I cannot here (intending brevity) enter upō the dispute about the power of one Bishop ouer another, or of the power of a Bishop over a Presbyter. The former of which is no doubt confirmed by a long continued Ecclesiasticall power, the latter by an Apostolicall. But that a Bishop should not have any superiority over an ordinary lay-man, seemes strange to mee. Certainely our Saviour intended some power and authority unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, when he gave them the keyes and wisht them to open and shut, to binde and loose, whose successors Bishops are, and though some make question whether they succeede them as Bishops, yet none doubt but they succeede them as Pastors of the Church, and thus have they power over lay-men. S. Paul wills Timothy to command and teach, 1. Tim. 4. 11. and in another place willeth others to obey those who had the oversight of them, Heb. 13. 17.

Now where there is commanding on the one side and obeying on the other, there must needs be superiority.

But I could not have imagined this had been your meaning, but for your proofes which followe. For we have believed him that hath told us, that in Christ Iesus there is neither high nor low, and that in giving honour every man should be ready to preferre another before himselfe, which saying cuts of all claime certainly of superiority, by title of Christianity, except men thinke that these things were spoken only to poore and private men.

Where, you consider not, that you run into an Anabaptisticall humor, and take away all superiority in the common-wealth, as well as in the Church, and entrench upon the Scepter of the King as well as upon the Miter of the Bishop. But your proofes are easily satisfied. For the first, though we finde not those very words in Scripture, yet I suppose you aime at that place wherein it is said, Wee are all one in Christ Iesus, Gal. 3. 28. where the true meaning of the place is, that as wee are Christians we are all one, that is, wee have all equally, and alike beene partakers of Christ by baptisme, as he saith, vers. 27. as many of you as have beene baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. So that as members of Christ we are all one, & all make but one body of Christ. Yet as amongst the naturall members of our bodies, so amongst the mysticall members of Christ, though they be all one as members, being compared with the head: yet being compared one with another, S. Paul tels us, there are more honourable and lesse honourable members, 1. Cor. 12. 23.

Your other place, that we should in giving honour preferre one another, teacheth humility, but taketh not away superiority.

But you go on and tell us, that nature and religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this heraldry of Secundum sub & supra: whereas in it they both joyne hand in hand. Nature acknowledgeth this heraldry, that shee may avoyd ataxie and confusion: And religion also, for did not our Lord and Master acknowledge a Caesar, and commanded us to give unto him that which belonged unto him, to wit, obedience & subjection. And doth not his Apostle S. Paul command that every soule should be subject to the higher power. Rom. 13. 1. where you see this heraldry of sub & supra, is put downe in expresse tearmes: and pray let us observe the Apostles reason why wee should thus be subject to the higher powers, for, saith he, there is no power but of God, & the powers that be are ordained of God. How heare I then, that all this comes from composition and agreement of men amongst themselves.

But I spare to prosecute this doctrine any further, least I should discover in it a very transcendent crime.

FINIS.